Why the Tories Won

vivatifosi

What happened to the long held view that pensioners were the most likely to vote and that's why their benefits are untouched?

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

What happened to the long held view that pensioners were the most likely to vote and that's why their benefits are untouched?

It's only pensioners who take the majority of their money from the state that are Es. My Mum is a pensioner and would probably be a B at a guess. Perhaps scraping an A.

She lives of her and my late Dad's pension for the most part. The state pension is a bonus not a necessity.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

vivatifosi wrote: »

What happened to the long held view that pensioners were the most likely to vote and that's why their benefits are untouched?

E's are state pensioners, casual/lowest grade workers, unemployed-state benefits only....

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the turnout from this demog was mostly state pensioners, with just a very few casual labour or unemployed on state benefits.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Generali wrote: »

I wonder if that's the vote 'wot won it' for the SNP in Scotland. I would be very interested to see turnout there by sociological grouping. .

We know that the lowest social groups tended to vote Yes in the indyref by a much higher margin than the higher social groups.



That this support would carry over to the next election, just 6 months after the indyref, is not altogether unsurprising. There was a huge campaigning machine still in place geared towards reaching those people and the SNP used it well.

But I think that's a unique situation as a result of a 2 year campaign driving mass engagement on a once in a lifetime political question.

vivatifosi

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

E's are state pensioners, casual/lowest grade workers, unemployed-state benefits only....

It wouldn't surprise me at all if the turnout from this demog was mostly state pensioners, with just a very few casual labour or unemployed on state benefits.

That's where I'm going with this. Experian sees poor pensioners as about 6% of the population. Per the ONS, in 2010 17% of the population are over 65, so about under 1 in 3 pensioners live in poverty (there are also pensioners living in ex-council properties in a different Experian group). So if DE = 25%, then that could be a relatively small number of pensioners proportionate to the group doing virtually all the voting. Which is a scarily large, totally disenfranchised group.

Don't like coming to those conclusions with such disparate non-matching data sources though, am outside of my comfort zone.

Generali

vivatifosi wrote: »

That's where I'm going with this. Experian sees poor pensioners as about 6% of the population. Per the ONS, in 2010 17% of the population are over 65, so about under 1 in 3 pensioners live in poverty (there are also pensioners living in ex-council properties in a different Experian group). So if DE = 25%, then that could be a relatively small number of pensioners proportionate to the group doing virtually all the voting. Which is a scarily large, totally disenfranchised group.

Don't like coming to those conclusions with such disparate non-matching data sources though, am outside of my comfort zone.

If it's any consolation, England's rulers have been concerned about a disconnected underclass since Elizabeth I at the very least.

When I used to work and hang out with people who earned very little (pre-minimum wage) they didn't give 2 hoots for politics. What pollies spoke about was utterly disconnected from their lives. That the 'pint of milk test' even exists shows how much connection pollies of all colours (except Dennis Skinner) have with the poorest voters in the UK.

In winter when my Mum was a kid they had to choose between heat and light for the last day or two of the week. For almost all pollies in the HoC that is beyond comprehension. They have no connection with or understanding of the poorest people in England. It's hardly surprising that the poorest voters respond by quoting Arkell vs Pressdram:

http://www.nasw.org/users/nbauman/arkell.htm

NSFW

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We know that the lowest social groups tended to vote Yes in the indyref by a much higher margin than the higher social groups.
...

Is this sort of voting behaviour akin to the nature of those who play the lottery?

Poorer/less educated people tend to buy into the pipe dream of winning.

As a theory it's definitely got wings (over Scotland).

antrobus

Generali wrote: »

To quote HAMISH, "Just....wow".

I haven't read this much crap since Polly Toynbee said that a single world currency should be adopted because at the time $1 ~ €1 ~ ¥100.

You are a parody, right...?

You might have a point there.

If someone in Conservative Central Office wanted to run a sockpuppet for the purposes of making left-wingers seem both stupid and absurd, then that's the kind of thing you would expect.:)

lisyloo

Es are people who solely or mainly rely on the state for their income including pensioners

Our parents are in their late 80's so would have trouble getting dressed and getting in a taxi without a carer to assist them.
Yes sure, someone could have got them a postal vote if they weren't too busy cleaning, doing laundry, shopping etc.

I wonder how many elderly people don't vote because it's simply too difficult for them and bottom of the list for their family carers too. I would execpt it to be the majority of those in nursing/residential homes.

Really annoys me when people used the "can't be ar**ed" phrase.
For some people it really is geuinely difficult to get out of the house.

Generali

lisyloo wrote: »

Rveally annoys me when people used the "can't be ar**ed" phrase.
For some people it really is geuinely difficult to get out of the house.

I'm not criticising anyone for not voting but it is interesting what the gap is between the proportion of As and Bs that vote versus Ds and Es.